HC Deb 30 July 1984 vol 65 cc3-5
2. Mr. Prescott

asked the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations the Civil Aviation Authority consulted in the process of preparing its review of airline competition policy; and, in particular, which appropriate trade unions it consulted.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley)

The organisations responding to the Civil Aviation Authority's consultative letters, listed in appendix 2 to the authority's final report on airline competition policy, included a number of trades unions.

Mr. Prescott

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the trade unions have not been consulted about the implications of the CAA report? Will he also confirm that he has met leaders of the airline industry, including Sir Adam Thomson and Lord King, to discuss the report's implications? Is the right hon. Gentleman not in danger once again of unilaterally intervening in industrial relations, as he did in the docks dispute, and therefore making another strike more likely? Does he agree that thousands of jobs are threatened as a result of the CAA review?

Mr. Ridley

No, Sir. The CAA consulted all the unions concerned. Since the report's publication, unions have been free to write to me about their views. Some have done that. It would be wrong for me to see the unions at present, because I have first to see the airlines concerned.

Sir Humphrey Atkins

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strength of feeling of a large number of the 37,000 remaining employees of British Airways who, having gone along willingly with a reduction in the work force from 58,000, now believe that the Civil Aviation Authority's suggestion that more of their routes should be taken away and more of their jobs lost is bad and hope that he will turn it down?

Mr. Ridley

I am sure my right hon. Friend will accept that the Government have not yet reached a decision on the matter and that it would be wrong for me to prejudge any such decision. I understand the fears and apprehensions of all those involved in this dispute.

Mr. Alfred Morris

The Secretary of State will be aware of my constituency interest in Manchester international airport and of the grave anxieties among its thousands of employees concerning the present uncertainties. Is there no definitive word that the right hon. Gentleman can say about the CAA's report before the recess? When will he make a statement?

Mr. Ridley

I am aware of the uncertainty that the report has caused. I hope to make a decision and announce it as soon as possible, though that may not be while the House is still sitting.

Mr. Steen

Is it true that a decision will be made about the CAA report on Thursday, as was suggested in the Sunday Express? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that if the CAA report is rejected there are likely to be upwards of 5,000 redundancies in the independent private airlines?

Mr. Ridley

My hon. Friend is an old enough hand to know that he should not believe everything he reads in the newspapers. I fear that that even goes for the Sunday Express. I am acutely aware of all points of view. Indeed, it would be difficult not to be. I cannot make any comment on the substance of the matter until the Government have reached their conclusions.

Mr. Carter-Jones

Will the Secretary of State say whether, as a result of the replies that he has received, the management or trade union side of any provincial airport has given support for the CAA report?

Mr. Ridley

I have had no direct communication from the trade unions in relation to any regional airport, but I have had representations of a national character from protagonists on both sides.

Mr. Dicks

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be grave disquiet inside and outside the House if he makes a statement on this issue during the recess? Will he promise that, if he does not make it before the recess, he will at least leave it until after we return, so that we may question him on whatever decision he makes?

Mr. Ridley

I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will question me and other Ministers at length in due course. I invite him to agree with me that to leave the industry in a state of suspense until we return from our recess would be unfair to the industry.

Mr. Park

Is the Minister aware that to disturb the present situation at the new Birmingham airport would be extremely damaging?

Mr. Ridley

I note what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Wilkinson

Is my right hon. Friend aware that germane to this whole matter are the mechanics and timing of privatisation and the question of airport policy? Is he further aware that to try to settle competition policy in the abstract, without resolving those questions, could lead to an unsatisfactory solution? Will he think long and hard, take heed of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), and not rush into anything which we may later regret?

Mr. Ridley

I assure my hon. Friend that I have thought, and will continue to think, long and hard. I believe that when conclusions are reached it is right to inform the world at large.

Mr. Dalyell

Has the Secretary of State considered the effect on employees at Edinburgh airport? Does he think that it is good enough to rattle off the sort of answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) and simply say that he notes what my hon. Friend says? Will he give a better answer than that?

Mr. Ridley

I understand that Edinburgh airport will be involved only indirectly in the proposals set out in the CAA report. The routes which it is proposed to be transferred may or may not be transferred. However, they will still be flown, and the net effect on employment must be minimal, if anything.

Mr. Adley

Does my right hon. Friend still think that he was right to refer the matter to the CAA? What circumstances, if any, have changed since he did so?

Mr. Ridley

The enormous concern and importance of the issue are such that it would have been quite wrong for the House not to have a report from the CAA. It is clear from the reaction that there are strong views on both sides of the House. The issue should not be brushed under the carpet by refusing to consider it.